Talk:Constitutional Question, Bankruptcy & RTA Termination
Evidence Issues
- TSL-62310-15-IN (Re), 2015 CanLII 85061 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/gmmtc>, retrieved on 2024-11-04
Cases to Review
- Alberta (Attorney General) v. Moloney, 2015 SCC 51 (CanLII), [2015] 3 SCR 327, <https://canlii.ca/t/gm22l>, retrieved on 2024-11-04
Test Case
- Agreed Facts,
- The (order) for termination was issued on September 25, 2024.
- The date in the order to pay the arrears by was October 15, 2024.
- The tenant was issued a stay by way of entry into bankruptcy on October 11, 2024.
- The request to review was filed on October 15, 2024.
- The board issued a stay of proceedings for the L1 Order on October 16, 2024, pending a review.
- There are no reasonable grounds for upholding the review, and thus, the stay must be lifted.
The problem is that under the RTA, there is no way to stop a termination post order under the current schema.
Proposed Constitutional Question
Where a conditional order of termination has been granted under an application based on notice served under section 59(1), followed by an application under 69 (1) constitutionally inoperative under the doctrine of federal legislative paramountcy, where a stay of proceedings has been issued under section 69.2 (1) of the BIA, having regard to the legistlative schema and purpose of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3?
